Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 2013-10-15^ TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Tuesday. October 15. 2013 AGENDA 7:00 P.M. Persons to be heard (no more than five minutes). 7:05 P.M. Consideration of a sketch plan for the proposed South Hill Complex located at 930 Danby Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 40-3-9.1,40-3-9.2,40-3-9.3, and 40-3-9.4, Industrial Zone. The proposal involves converting the first floor (2,500 +/- gross square feet) of the existing building into a restaurant use and constructing a new drive-thru ATM on the north side of the building with a new driveway. The project will also involve constructing a bypass lane around the ATM along with new retaining walls, outdoor lighting, landscaping, and signage. ICS Development Partners, Inc. and Sunom, Inc., Owners/Applicants; Scott Whitham, Agent. 3. Approval of Minutes: September 17, 2013. 4. Other Business 5. Adjournment Susan Ritter Director of Planning 273-1747 NOTE: IF ANY MEMBER OF THE PLANNING BOARD IS UNABLE TO ATTEND, PLEASE NOTIFY SANDY POLCE AT 273-1747. (A quorum of four (4) members is necessary to conduct Planning Board business.) TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD MEETING Tuesday, October 15, 2013 215 N. Tioga Street, Ithaca, NY 14850 Board Members Present: Fred Wilcox(Chair), Linda Collins,John Beach,Yvonne Fogarty, Paula Wedemeyer,Jon Bosak, Hollis Erb Staff Present: Chris Balestra, Planner; Mike Smith, Planner; Bruce Bates, Director of Code Enforce- ment; Susan Brock,Attorney for the Town; Deb DeAugistine, Deputy Town Clerk Call to Order Mr. Wilcox called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. AGENDA ITEM Persons to be heard Pat Dutt, 135 Westhaven Road, provided written comments about the Biggs property sale, which are provided below verbatim: "I am here tonight to present a petition to the Town Planning Board with regard to the sale of the Biggs Property. I want to state from the outset that we are not opposed to devel- opment, and we are in the process of conceptualizing what development would work best of the West Hill. However, most of the residents on West Hill were opposed to this sale for a myriad of reasons: 1. We asked the county for relevant updated economic, crime, and housing data.We were told there wasn't any. The affordable housing number was based upon a 2006 - almost 10-year-old study - that was written before the economic collapse. We got almost nothing from the County in terms of data. 2. We asked for a debate about the issue. Denied.We asked to be treated with re- spect; we got condescension. 3. While the development has some sustainable features - better insulated walls -- most developments today have sustainable features, but sustainable features does not make a development sustainable: it promotes more traffic, it promotes linear sprawl and it promotes community segregation. 4. Finally, the county did not do a full SEQR review before the sale of the land. That is illlegal." Mr. Wilcox stated that after the County's meeting two weeks ago, The Ithaca Journal ran an article that contained a quote from Krys Cail: "I foresaw this day coming. I foresaw that the politically powerful would get up and speak on behalf of poor people and explain that what poor people need is to de- stroy our neighborhood as we enjoy it." Ms. Dutt responded that Ms. Cail was misquoted. Ms. Dutt said they were also accused, by a person who lives on West Hill, of being racist - a person who never attended a community dinner, who nev- er attended a single meeting in the five years Ms. Dutt has been attending them, and to her knowledge has never been to any of the community gardens, and who lives on a compound on West Planning Board Minutes 10.15-2013 Page 2 of 11 Hill. She doesn't understand how someone could accuse the West Hill community of being racist when he doesn't even participate in the community and doesn't know what's going on. Anna Smith, Dubois Road, stated that she wanted to piggyback on what Ms. Dutt said.West Hill residents have tremendous anger about the way the Biggs development project is being handled and the way it's being rushed through. She and other West Hill residents are getting mixed messages from Town and County planners. She referred to two of the Town newsletters. The Fall 2011 issue con- tained an article about the Town's sustainability efforts and pointed out that 45% of the Town's greenhouse gas emissions come from pumping water from Bolton Point up to the hilltops.The Fall 2013 issue picks up on the same topic of sustainability with an article from the Conservation Board about reducing greenhouse gas emissions and an article about the Community Energy Action Plan, which focuses on reducing energy use and greenhouse gas emissions. Ms. Smith said the Town is sending a mixed message, talking about sustainability on one hand and talking about putting devel- opments in outlying areas on the other hand. It's self defeating to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in one area and increase them in another. The newsletter is saying the Town wants to reduce water us- age, so why build on the hilltops? Is this just paying lip service or is the Town really into sustainability? She agrees with Ms. Dutt that people on West Hill are not against development, but rather the way in which it's being done. Don't call it sustainable when the only thing sustainable about it is the build- ing. The Biggs property has 25 1/2 acres of land to build 60 units on, and the County proposes to cut down nine acres of trees. There's plenty of open land for the 60 units; there's no need to cut down nine acres of trees.You can't slap the label of sustainable on a project when it truly isn't. She also mentioned that the developer said he needs to get Town approval by December 5th. Mr.Wilcox asked whether the Town planning staff had seen any plans on the project. Ms. Balestra said they had not. Mr. Wilcox asked whether the Town Board had considered a zoning change on the property. Ms. Brock said, to her knowledge, they had not. Mr.Wilcox stated that given the process the developer would have to go through to get the project before the Planning Board, it's inconceiva- ble that anything would be wrapped up by the end of the year. Ms. Brock pointed out that it's a Type I action, so they would have to do a coordinated review with other involved agencies. Ms. Balestra added that it ends up being a very long process. If the developer wanted to make it to any meeting this year, they'd have to get the materials in by the first week of November. Ms. Smith responded that she was quoting from the presentation they gave the Legislature two weeks ago. Ms. Collins asked whether it was true, as Ms. Dutt stated, that they would need to do a SEQR before the property is sold. Ms. Brock responded that since it's a Type I action, it would require a SERQ review. Ms. Fogarty stated that the County did the short form. Sophie Zapala read from a prepared statement: Planning Board Minutes 10.15-2013 Page 3 of 11 "My name is Sophie Zapala and I am a West Hill resident. I am here to address the Biggs property project. During the last several months, the West Hill community did all it could to express strong objections to the project-by now we have quite an archive-and so I won't re- peat earlier communications, however, it is important that this body is aware of the commu- nity's views and I strongly recommend that you visit www.ithacawest.or and read all entries under "Objecting to Cayuga Village".You will also find our e-petition there. Tonight, I will talk about many troubling procedural and ethical aspects of this project. From the beginning, we, the residents of West Hill, have been rebuffed and ignored by the County representative and project manager, Ed Marx. Our first and foremost concern has always been the impact this project will have on our community.All of our verbal and writ- ten requests for environmental impact analysis documents (copies of written requests will be submitted with this statement) and pleas for two way discussion have been refused. There was never any intention to discuss the environmental impact or will to rectify the communi- ty's valid concerns. In fact,when the West Hill community initiated a grass roots effort in Ju- ly to come up with a win-win vision for West Hill and specifically for the Biggs project, the informal power channels were used by the local government officials to squash it before it took off the ground and the community was kept in the dark about it. Three months later, our grassroots effort was replaced by the Town/City endorsed and Cornell professor Oles led visioning exercise. Sadly, this very exercise was later ridiculed at the Tompkins County legis- lature as a "Cornell class exercise". If the government did not ruin our visioning efforts in July we would have had our own Biggs proposal ready to present to the County legislators before the County voted to approve the sale of the land. Having an appealing solution in place could have resulted in the vote go- ing the other way which is precisely why our efforts were disabled.The government's use of these kinds of tactics against the people they are supposed to represent, is unacceptable.We will not allow such interference into our community initiatives as this tramples basic demo- cratic principles of self-governance and if we are subjected to it in the future we will address it decisively. On Oct. 1, 2013, the Tompkins legislature voted(13-2)on Resolution 2013-164:Making a Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance in Relation to Resolution No. 165 of 2013:Authorizing the Sale of Property Located on Harris B. Dates Drive in the Town of Ithaca(ID #4346)while lack- ing substantial evidence to accurately determine the insignificance of the environmental im- pact of the project on the immediate neighborhood. Today I was able to obtain a copy of the Short Environmental Assessment Form (SEAF) (will be attached to my statement for your record) and was shocked how incomplete and inaccurate it is (no preparer, no dates, no sig- nature of the applicant(!), wrong and contradicting selections, misleading information). Poli- tics aside, a reasonable person would not accept what that short form has as enough evidence to support the decision. Also, it appears that the local government, in an effort to get this project approved, decided to break its own rules and engaged in a willful and methodical segmentation of the review process for the Biggs property, a practice that is illegal under NY state law. I am not saying this lightly; the facts on the ground confirm this as true. The definition of segmentation from the NYS Dept of Environmental Conservation says: "Segmentation means the division of the environmental review of an action such that various activities or stages are addressed Planning Board Minutes 10.15-2013 Page 4 of 11 as though they were independent, unrelated activities, needing individual determinations of significance." The County made a critical decision that will affect land use, but claimed that it was just making a minor decision that does not need a full SEQR review. In fact, several legislators made statements to that effect. The Town is expected to continue the process. By the time a SEQR review finally happens, it is already a done deal.Again, this is illegal under NY State law. The fact of the matter is that the county did not just make an isolated decision. It made a de- cision *with the intent* of having a specific development move forward. This is clear from both the correspondence we received from elected officials as well as the specific restrictions in the land sale legislation.The law *required* the County to do a SEQR on the *whole pro- ject*, not just the "minor" decision under review. The public has a legal right to an environmental review at the beginning of the process, not after the project is essentially a done deal. At this point, it will take a lawsuit to force the county to do what they were required to do under New York State Law.The West Hill Community is ready to pursue an Art.78 proceeding option. Many on West Hill feel that we do not have any representation. Our County legislator, Will Burbank, despite being well aware of our unsatisfied demands for environmental analysis voted to approve the sale. Our Town representative, Bill Goodman, is another supporter of the project. Bill is also a local real estate attorney, Eco-Village Alder Person and the attorney of record for TREE (Third Eco-Village).As an experienced attorney Bill understands that, even when one has the best intentions, wearing many hats may put him in the situation that creates or could create a conflict of interest. I don't think one needs to benefit personally to find himself/herself in the conflict of interest situation. Bill volunteered to help the County to get the EPA Climate Showcase grant. We also re- member that originally the County presented the Biggs property project as an Eco-Village approved Climate Showcase project. So here we have the first connection of Bill's actions to the Biggs property project. The Third Eco-Village which Bill represents as an attorney bene- fited from the very grant County received with his help and endorsement of Eco-Village where he is an Alder Person. So here we have a second connection, two hats. Bill is a sup- porter of the County project the West Hill community opposes and so here we have a third connection which puts Bill at odds with his constituency.When/if the project goes through the approval process at the Town, Bill will cast the vote, despite his earlier involvement in se- curing the funding for the project and his Eco-Village group benefiting financially. I am a lay person and don't know much about the conflict of interest or the required legal tests. However, in various professional training classes over the years when the topic was cov- ered I was taught that one should avoid even an appearance of conflict of interests. I think the above scenario is far deeper than that. It is my opinion that just based on the available information, Bill should recuse himself from casting the vote when/if the Biggs property pro- ject reaches the Town board. I posed the recusal and voting questions to Bill via private e- mail but have received no answer and so I assume he is planning to vote. What exactly was the role Bill played to advance Counties chances of getting the EPA grant? What was the Third Eco-Village' share, in dollars, of the EPA grant?What was Bill's first contact with the developers? How early in the process? Did he provide any advice to the de- Planning Board Minutes 10.15-2013 Page 5 of 11 veloper legal or otherwise directly or indirectly(via the County)?These are valid questions and I believe an impartial inquiry/review by the Town Ethics Committee and full disclosure from Bill is in order. I hope you could give me some suggestions as to how to address this particular concern. I hope that now you have a better understanding of both the past events and the current sta- tus of the Biggs project. It is my hope that you recognize the validity of our concerns and the illegality of segmentation we are witnessing. Our constitution starts, and for a very good rea- son,with "We the People" and this should not be applicable just at the federal level.We need to preserve it in our local actions, public discourse, and government decision making. Surely, many basic democratic principles have been broken to date as elaborated earlier. However,you will have the opportunity to restore balance when you are approached to put the Biggs property project on your agenda. I ask you do not participate in the review process that is illegal under the NYS law. Please do not put the Biggs property project on your agen- da until our Art.78 actions have been legally exhausted as doing otherwise would be coun- terproductive and illegal (segmentation does not end with the County). I hope you do the right thing. Thank you for your time." She also addressed the comments quoted from a meeting, saying that it's an example of when people say something they don't mean - when it comes out differently than they wanted. She said that using the race card is a strategy that will be seen going forward in discussions of affordable housing. She said that playing the race card is unacceptable: it was absolutely directed to set the tone accusing the community of being racist. She feels personally offended because she is color blind and she has raised her child colorblind. This is a very dangerous trend in this democratic community. Mr.Wilcox said that if residents are proceeding with an Article 78 proceeding, he assumes they will retain an attorney. He wanted to remind people that the County's action was to sell property. He said Ms. Zapala implied that elected representative Bill Goodman will have a vote on this project, but that is not necessarily correct. That will occur only if the project comes to the Town and needs rezoning. Ms. Zapala responded that she was aware of that.Throughout the process, Ed Marx insisted that they would have to go for rezoning, which is not true because they have two options: cluster development or the other option. She thinks they will go directly to the Planning Board to circumvent the com- munity and [inaudible] the environmental review. Mr.Wilcox responded that if it comes before the Planning Board, Ms. Zapala should observe the en- vironmental review. Ms. Fogarty said that Ms. Zapala is right in that the property is not zoned for 60 units; it's zoned for 26. Ms. Balestra said that it is zoned low-density residential, which requires 30,000-square-foot lot sizes. It does allow duplexes. Ms. Zapala pointed out that the environmental form itself has the wrong information. It states that it conforms to the existing zoning. She said it reeks of incompetence. It's a huge project of 60 units. Planning Board Minutes 10.15-2013 Page 6 of 11 This form has no name, it has no signature, no date. It means that when the County Legislature vot- ed, they reviewed an invalid document. She hopes they have enough courage to admit they dropped the ball on this and realize they need to do a full review and analysis without the neighbors having to sue them. Ms. Erb asked Ms. Zapata if she was certain she has the final SEQR, pointing out that the Planning Board sometimes corrects the form during the meeting. The final, approved form has the Board's corrections.That's why there's no signature on the one that goes out with the agenda, because it isn't signed until the Board goes through it and corrects it. Ms. Zapata responded that she reached out to the County clerk because the minutes said it was on file with the clerk of the legislature. The clerk said she doesn't have it. She reached out to a board mem- ber, who said it was available on the web site. That appears to be the only copy they have. Ms. Erb said that's potentially an uncorrected version. Ms. Zapata replied that changes would not happen outside the meeting. The meeting is recorded and there's not even half a minute of discussion of the form. She listened for five hours to see if there is a moment when this form is reviewed or discussed, but she heard nothing. Mr. Bosak said he was tempted to ask Ms. Brock for an analysis on segmentation, but was resisting in the interest of time. He commented that it was implied that the Planning Board has a choice about what goes on the agenda, but they don't. Mr. Wilcox said segmentation is interesting, because if you believe the County's responsibility was to do an environmental review of the project they're advocating for, then you might be able to argue segmentation. The issue to him is that the County sold a piece of land. It's like when the Planning Board does a subdivision: the action in front of the Board is not whether there will be a house on it, but the simple division of a piece of property into two pieces of property. So the Board doesn't get into an environmental review of building a house - that's taken care of through the permitting pro- cess. Ms. Brock said the Board should not be making pronouncements without seeing the County's ap- proval.We can't refuse to review an application, even if a lawsuit is pending. We will have to decide about SEQR. Under the Town's law, it is a Type I action, so we'll have to do a coordinated review. That will all have to be figured out if the project comes before the Board.We don't have the legal basis to flat out refuse to entertain an application until a lawsuit is done. Ms. Zapata said that she's a layperson. It seems to her that if step one is illegal, you can't proceed to the next step. It's segmentation.There's so much that is wrong with this project; she hopes someone steps in and looks into the tax credit programs. She sees those tax credits as tax-evasion vehicles. They're for large corporations and wealthy investors to protect themselves by seeking shelter from taxes because they have so many gains and profits in other areas. The program is structured for the benefit of large corporations. The median size of the building that can be built, in this case for afford- able housing, puts any average local developer out of the competition.Across this country, this is a highway to make money for large corporations and large investors, running away from paying taxes. It's wrong. Nobody has demanded that someone come up with an algorithm to determine if an inves- Planning Board Minutes 10.15-2013 Page 7of11 for builds so many homes with tax credits, how much we lose on an annual basis if they don't pay real estate taxes for 15 years. On the other hand, they can't make any money for 15 years and need to charge discounted rents to the tenants and deal with all of the costs of maintaining affordable hous- ing. Were is the sense? Mrs. Grippi asked whether anyone had looked at the traffic problem. Fifteen years ago, the State de- cided to make Route 96 into three roads, and the plans fell through. There was designation of im- portant buildings on that road. She asked how one gets to the hospital now. How does one get in and out of the development? She asked about this at one of the meetings, but there was no response ex- cept that they can come out were the ambulances come out, but they can't go in that way. People come to work from Trumansburg in the morning; the traffic is incredible. Children come down on bicycles; some people get their groceries and climb the hill on bicycles.When someone stops to turn left into the hospital, people go around toward the ditch.The whole thing is very unsafe. She sup- posed one of the plans is for them to come out on one of those private lanes,which will interfere with all that beauty, all that peace that people have put into their homes. There's no plan for how people will get in and out. She knows from experience that people come across from Sheffield Road and slide across the whole of Trumansburg Road in the winter. It's a mess as far as traffic. There are a lot of accidents. Since it's so steep, people come sliding down in the winter or they drive too slowly. She thinks that good planning would entail how people will get in and out, considering the mess there is right now. Mr. Wilcox said it might be a consideration to move Persons to Be Heard until the end of the meet- ing, as a service to applicants who have a scheduled time. AGENDA ITEM Consideration of a sketch plan for the proposed South Hill Complex located at 930 Danby Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 40-3-9.1, 40-3-9.2, 40-3-9.3, and 40-3-9.4, Industrial Zone. The pro- posal involves converting the first floor (2,500 +/-gross square feet) of the existing building into a restaurant use and constructing a new drive-thru ATM on the north side of the building with a new driveway. The project will also involve constructing a bypass lane around the ATM along with new retaining walls, outdoor lighting, landscaping, and signage. ICS Development Partners, Inc. and Sunom, Inc., Owners/Applicants; Scott Whitham, Agent Mr. Whitham said the project is a simple 2500-square-foot restaurant proposed for the interior of the building. The only exterior changes are a canopy and an ATM. There will be some additional signage. A drive-thru lane and a bypass lane to the north of the project will allow access to the ATM and bring traffic around. The site work will require some grading. They indicated some landscaping, but will come in with a complete plan. The building remains in its footprint. Mr. Sharma added that the 2500 square feet might be split into two. When they come back for pre- liminary site plan, they'll know if they'll have one or two tenants. To a question from Mr. Bosak regarding the layout of the building, Ms. Balestra said that only one story can be seen from Danby Road; that's the first floor. If you drive around the back, it looks as if it could have been a loading dock. That's the ground floor Planning Board Minutes 10.15-2013 Page 8 of 11 Mr.Whitham said that Digicomp will remain on the lower floor. The upper floor(first floor)will have the restaurant. Mr. Bosak asked for clarification about parking spaces and their location. Mr. Whitham said there are 11 or 12 spaces upstairs; 9 or 10 are required.The lower parking area will be for Digicomp. Ms.Wedemeyer asked about hours of operation and where restaurant employees will park. Mr.Whitham responded that they don't know the answers because they don't have a tenant yet. That will be covered during the site plan process. Mr. Bosak noted that the calculation is one space for every five seats, and that includes the average number of employees needed to service the restaurant. The implication is that the spots in the upper lot will also be for the restaurant employees.Whether that will be enough spaces depends on what type of restaurant it will be. Ms.Wedemeyer asked about hours of operation Mr. Beach stated that with the ATM and restaurant, there will be increased traffic. His concern is with the left-hand turn out of the property. His assumption is that traffic between Rogan's Corner and IC is heavier than that above IC's entrance. Ms. Fogarty commented that she went there before the meeting specifically to look at the left-hand turn.There is a traffic light just south of the building that stops the traffic coming downhill into town. It breaks up the traffic. The visibility is also very good. It didn't seem to her that the left-hand turn was a problem in either direction. Mr.Wilcox stated that there is an existing use. His opinion is that the Board doesn't need traffic counts. He asked if the number of employee trips in and out when the building was fully staffed was consistent with the new use. That's a DOT issue. Rogan's presents the same issue or even worse, with a restaurant, gas station, convenience store, and laundramat. Ms. Erb stated that she had no problem exiting the property turning north at around 6:10 p.m. Ms.Wedemeyer said it wasn't a typical day because of mid-terms. Mr. Bosak said the other traffic issue is the foot traffic, which is not related to the existing function at all. He assumes it will be a very attractive restaurant and ATM location for the student population across the highway. He's concerned over the safety. Ms. Balestra said there's a crosswalk further up and pointed out that the restaurant will also service people in the South Hill Business Campus. Ms.Wedemeyer asked about signage. Planning Board Minutes 10.15-2013 Page 9 of 11 Mr.Whitham responded that any tenant they have will want good signage, and he wouldn't be sur- prised if came out to be at the upper limit of what the code allows. Ms. Erb said there might be enough people at the South Hill Business Campus who would be inter- ested in the restaurant to consider a pedestrian connection and suggested they speak with the owners of that property. She said that part of the sign issue is that there will be two separate businesses, and they will need one sign with information about both businesses. She said the Board generally likes as few parking spaces as possible, but enough to make it sensible, and will want to know where the ADA- compliant spots will be located.The Board will be interested in landscaping and will want to know exactly what is being proposed for trees and shrubs. Mr. Wilcox said Ms. Balestra interpreted the number of parking spaces the best she could. He asked whether the Planning Board could demand more parking spaces than zoning requires. Ms. Balestra replied that she didn't know.Town code doesn't specify parking for mixed-use zones, so there's no standard number that is required. Additionally, the code only contains a provision that permits the Board to reduce the required parking, not request more parking than is required. Mr.Wilcox went on to say that if a determination is made that, based on current regulations, this is the number of parking spaces needed, he's not sure the Board can ask for more without good cause. Mr. Bosak pointed out that the Town Board didn't create a special law for this situation. If it isn't specifically covered,we've got no limit to deal with. Mr.Wilcox asked why a restaurant in an industrial zone would be different from a restaurant in a commercial zone. Ms. Balestra responded that it is because a restaurant isn't typically permitted in an industrial zone. Ms. Erb said that there are 11 parking spaces total and one is ADA-compliant.As someone coming to dinner, she thinks it would be a bit of a turnoff if there were only five parking spaces. Mr. Bosak stated that what the Board may be bumping up against is an algorithm that makes sense for a very large installation, but that breaks down at the edge case where there's a very small opera- tion. They must have four employees,which will take up a third of the spaces. It is not something that would happen if the thing were ten times the size. Mr.Wilcox pointed out that it is in the restaurant's best interest to have enough parking spaces. If they don't, people will drive in and, seeing no parking spaces, turn around and drive out. Ms.Wedemeyer stated that there was some mention about outdoor eating spaces. Mr. Whitham responded that it is not part of the plan right now to have outdoor dining. Ms. Collins said it isn't known what type of restaurant it will be, so it seems that some of the issues about the algorithm that is attached to the number of seats in the restaurant are premature. It could be a restaurant where 11 spaces is appropriate because they have only a few tables and the primary business model is for people to stop in, retrieve food, and get in their car and drive away. Some of these things may depend on the type of restaurant. Planning Board Minutes 10.15-2013 Page 10 of 11 Mr. Bosak stated that the Board has to consider that if a certain type of restaurant is proposed in the site plan, where that number of parking spaces is appropriate, there is no legal requirement that that type of restaurant exist there in perpetuity. Ms. Collins responded that the algorithm is based on the number of seats in the restaurant at the time the restaurant is built. It's moot right now;we can only consider the plans put before us. Ms. Erb pointed out that this is an isolated little restaurant without any other parking surge space anywhere else. She added that if the applicant has any view for outdoor dining, the parking spaces are in the wrong place; they ought to be dug into the hill on the other side because they'll want the din- ing immediately outside the front door. She asked about the existing storage building on the property and was told it will go away. Ms. Erb said that when they come back for site plan review, they will need to tell the Board why they think a bank is important in that isolated, hidden location. Ms. Brock said it's not in the Board's purview to ask that. It's a use that's allowed in the variance. If they want to propose a use that's allowed, they have that right. The Board can look at circulation is- sues.They can look at visual aspects. Mr. Bosak commented that even though it's not in the Board's purview, if he had a job in town and was commuting in and out every day, that's a very convenient place for an ATM. Ms. Erb said this would be a good time to consider taking down the ash trees. Mr. Whitham responded that they might leave a couple. Ms. Bosak said he was having trouble picturing a fire truck turning around. Mr. Whitham responded that there's a bypass lane. There's no question that they'll meet the re- quirements of the fire department. AGENDA ITEM Approval of Minutes Ms. Erb said a statement made by Ms. Stewart(bottom of page 6) regarding the seven-acre lot re- quirement in conservation zones is incorrect. The code has a requirement for an average of one dwell- ing unit per seven acres, but not a requirement that each lot be seven acres in area. It is a consistent mistake that is made and is a concern to many people. Mr. Bates disagreed, saying the minimum lot area in a conservation zone is seven acres. If you're not clustering and you're in that zone,you have to meet that requirement. Mr.Wilcox disagreed, saying that would defeat the purpose of the conservation zone. If you want to do a subdivision in a conservation zone, the number of lots is arrived at by dividing the size of the parcel by seven.Then you're required to cluster those lots to leave as much open space as possible. That's roughly one lot per seven acres, but not seven-acre lots. Planning Board Minutes 10-15-2013 Page 11 of 11 Mr. Bates pointed to § 270-19 Size and area of lot, which states that the "Minimum lot area shall be at least seven acres." If you're not clustering and you're in that zone, you have to follow those rules. Clustering leads to a different requirement. PB Resolution No. 2013-043: Minutes of September 17, 2013 Moved by Fred Wilcox; seconded by John Beach WHEREAS, the Town of Ithaca Planning Board has reviewed the draft minutes from the meeting on September 17; now therefore be it RESOLVED, the Town of Ithaca Planning Board approves the minutes, as amended, to be the final minutes of the meeting on September 17. Vote: Ayes: Wilcox, Collins, Fogarty, Beach, Wedemeyer, Bosak, Erb AGENDA ITEM Adjournment Upon a motion by Hollis Erb, the meeting adjourned at 8:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, /(^ )ra DeAugiStine, DeputyT'o^i Clerk